[opendtv] Re: Are ATSC Stations Going Off The Air?
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 11:16:47 -0400
On Oct 14, 2013, at 5:26 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E"
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> No doubt, you're referring to the iPhone. Which only "changed" things, in
> this respect, by adding the Apple walled garden to the cellco walled garden.
> In which case, Apple would continue to have no interest in allowing broadcast
> TV on their phones. Much better to force the faithful to use iTunes for this.
Yes, I was referring to the fact that the Apple/AT&T deal fundamentally changed
who is in control of the devices that attach to cellular networks, both in the
U.S. and around the world. BUT, Apple was not the sole beneficiary.
It did not take long for Google to respond with Android, which in turn has
allowed a large number of mobile device manufacturers to get into the game. And
now, MicroNokia is trying to get into the game as well. Today, the telcos are
selling three services: Voice, Data, and text messaging. And text messaging is
rapidly becoming just another "Data App."
Apple's iTunes and App Store are no more walled gardens than the equivalents
from Google, Amazon, et al. Apple does curate the App Store, which in turn
leads to the oft stated opinion that the Apple system is closed (or a walled
garden). But most of the folks who use iTunes and the App Store like the
additional security that curation provides. Not unlike Windows, the vast
majority of "exploits" are targeted at Android (above 90%).
Rather than argue this point, consider what was happening before 2007. The
human interface to feature phones SUCKED. Blackberry caught on because it
leveraged instant messaging and e-mail for corporate clients; but web browsing
sucked, and there were no apps. The telcos tried to offer add on subscription
services, but they had little control over the handset makers to support these
services, so you typically had to buy a phone that was designed for one of
their services (VCast and FloTV are good examples.
So ask yourself this question. Did the telcos have the ability to develop the
smartphone, an OS to run it, and an open ecosystem for third party app
development?
The reality today is that there are at least three viable platforms for App
developers, who are making billion$ off of the Apps they develop; and all of
the most desirable apps are available on iOS and Android, while Windows Phone
plays catch-up.
Do you seriously believe that the telcos could have done this?
As for Apple allowing LTE Broadcast on their phones, I believe you are looking
at this the wrong way. First, Apple has no problem supporting competitors to
iTunes. There are Apps for Netflix, Hulu, Hulu Plus, most of the Broadcast
networks, Pandora, Spotify, The Kindle Reader, and many, many more. Apple has
deals for some of this content via iTunes, but they do not block free or
subscription based alternatives.
To be fair, Apple is usually not the first to the party. For example, they were
one of the last device manufacturers to support LTE, and they appear to be
developing an alternative to NFC. So Apple is not likely to show an interest in
Broadcast LTE until it is a commercial reality. I see no reason why they would
not support it, if implemented in a manner that fully leverages the LTE
standards. Apple already provides access to most Network TV programming, either
via rental from the iTunes store, or third party Apps. But they do not provide
much in the way of live streaming content - this is left to the App developers
and the owners of this content.
Bottom line, if Broadcasters are willing to invest in the Broadcast LTE
infrastructure, the highly competitive mobile device market will support it, as
it adds nothing to the cost of the device.
> Perhaps, just like there's nothing to stop the tablet from supporting DVB-T2
> or ATSC MH.
Apples and oranges. The LTE support is already there, and you can be certain
that Qualcomm and others will add support for any new frequency bands.
DVB-T2 and ATSC M/H require another chipset, and they are both power hungry,
limiting the amount of viewing time on a battery charge. But more important,
without compelling content there is no reason to encumber a device with these
chips.
> If the tablet does not subscribe to a cellco network, so that the cellco
> network gets nothing for the broadcast material, then it makes sense for the
> broadcasters to create as efficient a broadcast stream as possible, for THEIR
> OWN benefit. And that's not going to be LTE overlay. Not unless the
> broadcasters have ideas of branching out into ISPs of some type or other,
> themselves.
This is nonsense. LTE Broadcast has already been demonstrated to be an
efficient way to deliver content to mobile devices that ALREADY support the
critical hardware and software needed for reception. All that is needed is an
applications layer - an App for the broadcaster(s). This can be a single app
for all local broadcasts, based on a new ATSC standard, or individual apps for
each station; it might even be a component of the Apps already available from
the broadcast networks, using geo-location to determine how to access the local
network affiliate.
Broadcasters are not in the position to compete in the ISP business, as this
would require overbuilding the telco networks, and far more spectrum that is
available in any market. Broadcasters CAN leverage existing wired and wireless
ISP services to handle the back channel requirements, just as every other App
does today.
> AND, let's not forget something else we've been over countless times, there
> is very limited demand for real-time *broadcast* to mobile devices. Sports,
> maybe some news and weather. That's it. Hardly enough, in hours/week, to
> justify the broadcasters wanting to switch to a more expensive LTE overlay
> network. Mobile users have proven that they can't be tied to down to lengthy
> programs on someone else's schedule.
How can you measure demand for a service that does not exist today?
What you CAN measure is the success of the Apps that are delivering content
that is exclusive to the MVPDs for their subscribers. You are not considering
the cost and use cases in your analysis. Clearly smartphones are not an ideal
second screen, but they are more than adequate when you have no other
alternative. I have used my iPhone to follow sporting events for years when I
am away from home. At first all I could do was monitor scores on appropriate
websites. Then they started doing "data" play by play. Now I can actually watch
the event. The major problem with the current situation is that when I am using
the telco LTE network I am burning through my monthly data allocation.
You are completely missing the fact that Broadcast LTE can replace ATSC-1 for
fixed receivers and tablets as well. I have no problem watching feature length
content on my iPad; I did not buy the version with LTE, as WiFi is almost
always available in the locations where I use my tablet. If Broadcast LTE were
available I would buy a tablet that supports it, and turn on the telco data
network when traveling.
>> Sorry, Craig, but you state this without proof. My bet is, the cost issue is
>> noise level. Demand, on the other hand, is another issue, which also applies
>> to this LTE overlay idea.
In a sense we agree. Without a compelling reason to add the chip there is no
reason to spend even a penny. IF broadcasters decide to move to Broadcast LTE
and there is compelling content, there is no reason not to support it, as it
will not add cost to any device that supports LTE.
> Sorry again, Craig, but I don't like playing this game. I showed you the
> numbers, I gave you the reference, I did the simple arithmetic for you. If
> you want b/s/Hz to be more than, say, 1 b/s/Hz, and even for that, you have
> to create a denser mesh than you seem willing to to accept, for LTE. So, we
> go through all of this, then you forget a few months later, and then you're
> back to your old arguments and incorrect assumptions, and expect me to
> rehash. No, sorry.
I believe your assumption may be flawed. There are nowhere near 800 cell towers
in the Washington DC area, but there are more than 155,000 cellular antennas
registered in the FCC database. Obviously, many are microcells for buildings
and the Metro.
What I do know is that LTE works in Washington DC. ATSC does not work in many
areas. I have little reason to believe that LTE Broadcast would not improve
FOTA reception in DC.
> We went through that one ad nauseam too. That's the MVPDs looking for long
> term survival. Not the content owner looking to maximize their viewership.
> Content owners have no reason to swear unending loyalty to the existing set
> of MVPDs, as their only way to get this Internet viewership.
Survival? Perhaps.
I prefer to look at this as the ability for the MVPDs to enhance the value of a
monthly subscription that is already too expensive, by enabling the content you
are paying for to be viewed on mobile devices. It's not just for wireless
broadband; most of these Apps are used on tablets pulling bits from from wired
networks via WiFi. The TV in the kids room is rapidly becoming a tablet that
can be used for MANY Apps.
> Craig, again, no proof for your claims. You need to show numbers that prove
> that a dense mesh of towers, hundreds of them for a reasonable sized market,
> even if small towers, costs less than the big stick (often shared among
> several broadcasters). If you can show that, then OTA broadcasters w/should
> have been making the transitions long ago.
I'll leave that exercise to folks like Mark Aitken.
I'll just add that broadcasters can leverage both their own existing
infrastructure and that of the telcos, who for the most part lease their tower
space.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
